2.  How do you feel about PETA using extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention?

3.  If you worked PR for SeaWorld, how would you respond to PETA and the release of the Blackfish documentary?

https://marist.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=81a1143d-c924-4f71-9e8f-acfe0133d2c4

1. I think that PETA did a phenomenal job at promoting the viewing of their documentary Blackfish by posting on social media in anticipation of the CNN broadcast. As stated in the video, the CNN network amassed over 20.6 million views for the Blackfish documentary, so based on the millions of people who tuned in to see it, that shows the effectiveness of the campaign altogether. Even though the promotion of the documentary was not extreme, I feel like this was the best approach because it did not present PETA as trying to display a promotional tactic, but instead as an organization with an important message to share with the public. If we are going to be technical, they could have released a press kit to more print and news organizations, but overall I feel like the tactics were extremely effective as they used communication channels to publicize the documentary and blogged about the film’s limited theatrical release in July 2013.  

2. I feel like PETA organizing a publicity stunt in downtown San Diego to draw attention to orca captivity in SeaWorld’s oldest park a few miles away was very smart. They did this by having a large crate that emitted high-pitched orca distress calls that were decorated with labels reading “Shipping to SeaWorld” and “Live Orca.” I feel like this tactic was extravagant, yet necessary. As an animal lover, this may seem drastic in other people’s eyes, but I feel like the fact that they went this far to gain media attention around the issue just shows the care and compassion they have for protecting wildlife. Using this unconventional method was disruptive in a good way because it caused people to evaluate the circumstances around orca captivity, creating interest and enthusiasm around watching the Blackfish documentary days before it premiered on CNN. It evoked an emotional response out of the audience they were trying to reach, and I am not surprised as PETA is known to pull extravagant stunts such as this one.

3. If I worked for SeaWorld and I had valid reasoning to promote the safety of orca’s within the theme park, I would show evidence based on the facilitation of the proper care these wildlife animals are receiving. It is hard for me to say how I would respond, as I agree with PETA in this case, but in terms of a response to the release of the Blackfish documentary, I would want to create a documentary in response showcasing wildlife safety, and the precautionary measurements that are taken for orca protection. I would showcase the positive aspects of how orca are treated at SeaWorld through the caring staff (if there are any). I personally would be honest with the public, because there is no way to hide animal cruelty and captivity with pretty words meant to protect a reputation. 

2. I think they should have stopped orca entertainment after the death of Dawn Brancheau because it would have shown their recognition of the dangers of orca captivity to humans, showing care for their staff, wildlife, and public altogether. By waiting it showed that they cared more about consumer profit, and only wanted to end it after the truth from the PETA Blackfish documentary was exposed. Stopping the orca entertainment show would have also prevented a lot of the negative backlash they got after Brancheau was tragically killed because it displays their care for the safety of the park’s guests. By not doing this they showed a lack of care for security regulations, and this tragic death just showed why orcas are not meant to be promoted for amusement. 

3. In my opinion, I think there was nothing they could have done differently because this is an argument of what is morally wrong and right. In this circumstance, the tragic death of Dawn Brancheau should have been enough reasoning to stop the orca shows, and I think what they could have done differently is to just end them after her death. There is not a response that would have made me feel like orcas belong in captivity because they don’t. SeaWorld had a chance at promoting their concern around the safety and security of their guests but chose not to do so because of consumer profit, and ultimately that cost them celebrity supporters and the publics’ support. They could have come back from this by recognizing their mistakes, but instead, they have a permanent negative stigma around their reputation. 

2. I do think SeaWorld should have definitely stopped the shows after the death of Brancheau.  While many believed it was an accident, someone died.  But it wasn’t just anyone, it was someone trained to take care of the whale.  At that point, especially given the whale’s history, SeaWorld should’ve stopped the shows immediately afterwards.  Though rules were in place to prevent it from happening again, there is always the possibility of it happening again somehow.  

3. I think SeaWorld was done for after the release of the Blackfish documentary.  There was so much build-up leading to the release of the documentary.  PETA had been speaking out against SeaWorld for years.  Multiple incidents, including death, had occurred with the killer whale shows.  Then finally, a documentary that discusses it all in 80 minutes.  20 million people watch it in the span of 17 airings.  SeaWorld could deny it all they want.  They could provide all the evidence and facts as to how this documentary was wrong, but there was too much to ignore at that point.  So many more people began fighting for the cause.

1. I think Carr-Jordan did a phenomenal job at raising awareness and sparking national attention towards McDonald’s unclean conditions that young children were vulnerable to with her initial Facebook video to taking legal action as she testified at legislative hearings and spoke individually with elected officials. She obtained her first clear governmental result in her county in September 2012 when Arizona's Maricopa County officially approved a new section in the Environmental Health Code. I think possibly some additional steps could have been to get the CDC involved somehow, as it was stated that multiple pathogens posed as dangers to the children’s health and wellbeing. She could have also spoken with more news outlets if she wanted to gain more exposure, but I think ultimately she did a great job at spreading awareness.

2. I don’t think it was fair for her to be banned when she provided evidential truth and stressed necessary concerns about the safety and security of not only her children but other children's exposure to the infectious environment they were allowed to be in. McDonald’s even tried to categorize this as an isolated incident in a ploy to salvage their reputation, but I think that ultimately made things worse because they are responsible for the conduct of their fast-food chains. Therefore them banning her can be viewed as hostile and as retaliation by the public for simply being honest. In all fairness, I don’t think she would be taking herself or her children back to any McDonald’s after all of the legal action she took against them. Wendy’s might be a better option for them. 

3. I think Carr-Jordan had a lot of credibility and even if she didn’t have very much with her educated background, she still had evidence and proof of concern. Her main credibility in my opinion lied within her being a mother who was concerned about her children’s and other’s safety, not her status within higher education. I also think she did a great job at creating exposure around the unhealthy conditions, for example, she contacted and did interviews with multiple publications and news outlets such as the Chicago Tribune who followed Carr-Jordan to the McDonald's playground and found the similar unsanitary conditions she had pointed out in her initial claims. I think overall there is nothing more that she could have done because she implemented every strategic action to bring attention to the key publics, more specifically concerned families. 

2. I did find it very surprising that she was banned from eight McDonald’s in her area.  While she was fighting for a good cause, perhaps she did take it a little too far if she kept going even though McDonald’s disclosed their cleaning protocols and habits.  Eight seems very excessive but if she caused a scene at all eight I could see why they banned her.  

3. Perhaps she could have collaborated with scientists who worked in microbiology who would back her claims.  Her doctorate was not in microbiology so many did not find her credible.  Perhaps if she collaborated with a microbiologist or some sort of microbiology lab/organization, she could have been seen as more credible.

2. Other companies were able to see how United responded and how that response basically failed and made the situation much worse.  From that video, other companies were able to see how easy some things can go viral and how one isolated incident could lead to such controversy.  It is especially important in today’s age as things can spread like wildfire on social media.  Organizations need to make sure that their customer relations team shows that they care about every situation and are willing to fix it anyway they can.

3. United could have tweeted more about how they were going to fix the situation and shown rectifying behavior by announcing changes to their policies via social media.  They could have interacted with Carroll more on social media and made jokes about the video or released an apology song.  

2. I think that his video brought attention to how the baggage handlers were loading the luggage. Caroll’s bass player, also looking through the plane’s windows, saw his bass guitar being thrown as well, and when Caroll immediately alerted the plane’s flight attendants, they shooed him away, saying it wasn’t their responsibility. His video that went viral will ultimately make airline companies think twice about mishandling flyer’s luggage and the customer service etiquette that goes into respecting the passenger’s belongings. His video can also help companies implement stronger protocols and measures taken when guests are expressing genuine concern for their belongings, and be more considerate of the policies they have in place, such as United’s policy which requires customers to report damaged baggage claims within 24 hours of the flight. I think companies should learn to be more accommodating to their customers, especially since Caroll was unable to report claims within 24 hours since he was miles away on tour. His video paints a picture of the lack of customer care that the airlines had, so hopefully, companies learn from this. 

3. United Airlines could have utilized social media to repair this situation by conducting a risk assessment as I talked about before, but also could have shown the strategic action they took to try and rectify the issue. Responding to the crisis on social media would have been a good start for them, but they also could have also expressed an apology to Caroll and the public. They should have shown on social media how they changed their customer service policies upon Caroll’s video gaining national awareness, down social media monitoring, and enacted in public engagement concerning the case. Unfortunately, their silence in the issue was very strong and they waited a long time to take corrective action. 

Great discussion on the case! 

1. I think the way that PETA promoted the documentary was extremely effective in garnering a lot of views without making it seem like a promotional tactic for the organization. I think there is a fine line between too little and too much promotion, and I would say that in this case PETA did an excellent job in determining how much promotion was necessary. However, if more promotion was required, I would think that more press kits and press releases could have been sent to traditional media sources. 

2. I think that in the right situation, using extravagant methods and unconventional tactics is a really smart idea, and I believe that was the case for PETA here. I think it demonstrated the care and passion that they have for this issue, and it was unconventional enough to gain a lot of attention by people who may otherwise have remained unaware of the documentary. 

3. If I worked PR for SeaWorld, I would respond to the documentary with complete honesty, recognizing the mistakes and misdoings of the organization and try to be completely transparent. At the same time, I would make sure to highlight any positives, like precautionary measures taken by the organization to ensure wildlife and staff safety. 

1. If I had seen Blackfish before the Truth Campaign, I would most likely view the campaign as damage control and be more likely to believe the documentary. As I am already not a fan of SeaWorld or any type of amusement parks that use animals for entertainment value, the documentary and campaign just furthered my dislike for SeaWorld.

2.  SeaWorld should have absolutely stopped orca entertainment shows after Dawn Brancheau’s death. This would have demonstrated a deeper understanding of the animals in their care as well as shown respect and care for the welfare of the staff and wildlife of the park. 

3. I don’t think there was anything else SeaWorld could have done. I believe it was almost inevitable for the organization to face controversy and public discourse over animal captivity and use for entertainment; the death of Dawn Brancheau and the Blackfish documentary only escalated the discourse around the park. This isn’t just a question of how to respond to a crisis, but questions of what is right and wrong when it comes to the care of wildlife.

1. I think that Carr-Jordan did a great job using the resources available to her to raise awareness of her campaign. I would say that the only other steps she could have taken would have been to use more of a mix of traditional and social media, and focus on getting more organizations, like the CDC, involved earlier. But overall, I think she did the best she could and it was a successful campaign.

2. No, I don’t think it was fair of McDonald’s to do that. It doesn’t paint a very nice picture of the organization and their reaction to Carr-Jordan suggests that they are trying to hide the truth. Additionally, Carr-Jordan had evidence that proved the dangerous conditions of the McDonald’s play areas and banning her suggests that the organization just didn’t want to deal with it.

3. I think Carr-Jordan provided a lot of credibility between her background, the background of the people that she consulted throughout her campaign, as well as the evidence that she collected. Additionally, her status as a concerned mom adds to her credibility in the campaign. I think the only way to really add any more credibility would be to add more scientists and credible voices to her campaign.

Great breakdown on the case!

1. I think United Airlines could have done a lot more in their communication to demonstrate care for their publics and be able to reduce any damage done to their reputation. I believe that a more in-depth initial response, and a quicker response than the one they provided would have been very impactful. Their response should have included some form of news release or video statement, or another form of traditional media.

2. I think his video can help other organizations be aware of how impactful social media can be in spreading information, as well as demonstrating the need for proper responses to customer concerns. If an organization responds poorly, as United did, things can get much worse. It may drive an organization to implement stronger protocols and measures to make sure that customer concerns are heard, respected, and taken seriously.

3. United Airlines could use social media to repair the situation in participating in two-way communication with the public and allow them to really see how the public was responding to the situation. It also would have afforded the organization opportunities for more transparency and the ability to show the public that they care about their customers and their concerns.

2. In general, I think PETA's more unconventional publicity stunts are really clever. It can be hard, and expensive, to gain media attention for social causes, and then even harder to convince the public to support the cause. This whole process becomes even more expensive and time consuming when the organization is going up against a large corporation. PETA's stunts, like people painting themselves like killer whales, were an interesting and effective way to capture the public's attention.

3. This is a very difficult situation for SeaWorld, not only because the documentary took off and received a lot of support and views, but also because the deaths and injuries of employees was undeniable. It is especially difficult to convince external publics that you are dealing with animals humanly once they have been told otherwise. Many people don't actually know the the specifics of what is safe and what is detrimental to the animals' behavior and growth. I think I would have had SeaWorld be as transparent as possible as quickly as possible, and use visuals. Provide the public with behind-the-scene footage of how large the tanks are and how they take care of the animals. Instead of writing the documentary producers and PETA off as activists with an agenda, I would have SeaWorld focus on addressing their specific concerns. I don't remember if it was in part one or part two of this case, but I think one thing SeaWorld did well was use their own trainer testimonies. This tactic was especially powerful when they used the same trainers or ex-trainers that were used in Blackfish, some of which came out and said Blackfish falsely portrayed the purpose of the film and the trainers' stories. I think this was the most effective way to break down some of Blackfish's credibility. These specific testimonies should have been promoted more heavily.

1. Do you think PETA could have done more to promote viewing the documentary Blackfish? If so, what else could they have done? 

I think that they were thoughtful in their efforts to do a publicity stunt and used many social media outlets to promote the viewing of blackfish. Therefore I don’t they could have done more. 

2.  How do you feel about PETA using extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention?

I personally don’t support PETA or their actions, but in this case, I felt like their stunts did help the greater cause.

3.  If you worked PR for SeaWorld, how would you respond to PETA and the release of the Blackfish documentary?
 I feel like I would be put into a very tricky situation. SeaWorld didn’t handle things correctly both regarding the animals or their responses and I feel like I might have to step away from this specific case. 

1.I think PETA did a good job at promoting Blackfish. I think using social media and the publicity stunts were useful tactics to get the message across and promote the documentary as much as they could. 

2.Although it might come off as extravagant, I think PETA was simply trying to get their point across. Sometimes you have to get people’s attention by standing out and being loud which is exactly what the publicity stunt in San Diego was.

3.If I worked for Sea world I would make a statement as soon as possible and own up to any wrongdoings that have been brought to light instead of denying or defending the claims that have been made. The main focus would be saving Sea World's reputation.

2.A worker being killed by one of their whales should have been enough reason to close Sea Worlds doors. To wait until the release of Blackfish just increased the amount of wrongdoing done by SeaWorld and it makes it seem like they don't care about the safety of their employees. 

3.I don't think there was anything else Sea World could have done. They had already lost this battle before they started and did as much as they could to clear their name. They had already lost the trust of the public. Maybe if they had responded sooner or stopped after the death of Dawn Brancheau they wouldn't have received as much backlash.  

2.  PETA has always had extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention and this is something that they are known for. While sometimes controversial, I think it has become apart of their brand overtime to include extravagant and shocking methods to gain media attention. At this point, it is expected of them and their best way to stay on brand since this is the image they have cultivated. For this campaign in particular, I think that their media attention stunts were more tame than other ones they have done. However, they were just as effective.

3.  SeaWorld was in major trouble after PETA released the documentary. If I were in charge of the PR, I would insist that the only option is to promise a more transparent future and admit the faults and issues in the way that SeaWorld has been operating previously. This would include not only verbalizing the promise but doing events and fundraising to show promise towards the actions.

3. I think SeaWorld did their best in a reactionary response so I do not think there is anything they could have done better in response to PETA and the  Blackfish  documentary. However, I do believe that SeaWorld could have done a better at proactive preparation for a communication crisis, especially since they knew what they were doing was not completely ethical. Beyond this, they could have stopped the issues that they knew the public would have problems with.

1. Even though the Truth Campaign had the option to protect a few assertions made in Blackfish, I don't think the animals have a place in tanks. The Truth lobby was only a protection strategy to demonstrate their innocence all that could be expected to appear to be straightforward with people in general. 

2. A laborer being executed by one of their whales ought to have been sufficient motivation to close Sea Worlds entryways. To stand by until the arrival of Blackfish just expanded the measure of bad behavior done via SeaWorld and it causes it to seem as they couldn't care less about the security of their workers. 

3. I don't think there was whatever else Sea World might have done. They had effectively lost this fight before they began and did however much they could to demonstrate their innocence. They had effectively lost the trust of people in general. 

1. I believe that Carr-Jordan worked effectively utilizing the assets accessible to her to bring issues to light of her mission. I would say that the solitary different advances she might have taken would have been to utilize all the more a blend of conventional and web-based media, and spotlight on getting more associations, similar to the CDC, included prior. Be that as it may, generally speaking, I figure she did all that could be expected and it was a fruitful mission. 

2. No, I don't think it was reasonable of McDonald's. It doesn't illustrate the association and their response to Carr-Jordan recommends that they are attempting to conceal reality. Also, Carr-Jordan had proof that demonstrated the hazardous states of the McDonald's play territories and forbidding her recommends that the association simply didn't have any desire to manage it. 

3. I think Carr-Jordan gave a great deal of believability between her experience, the foundation of individuals that she counseled all through her mission, just as the proof that she gathered. Furthermore, her status as a concerned mother adds to her believability in the mission. I figure the best way to truly add any greater validity is add more researchers and dependable voices to her mission.

2. I think this video significantly affected how associations utilize web-based media to deal with circumstances. I have seen carriers get called out via online media by miserable clients and the aircrafts normally answer straightforwardly to deal with the circumstance. Organizations appear to have understood that web-based media can possibly make nearly anything turn into a web sensation, and the exact opposite thing they need is for something negative about their association being spread to millions. From Carroll's video, I think organizations have figured out how to act rapidly and effectively to keep away from a viral debacle. 

3. One significant way United Airlines might have utilized online media to fix the circumstance would have been to post a video explanation and considered correspondence from general society. It would have been helpful for United to guarantee the public their voices were heard and that they were putting forth a valiant effort to improve their client assistance strategies. They might have additionally set up their own record explicitly for client assistance issues to give client's various assets for managing issues.

1. While I think there is always more that could be done I think PETA did enough to get people talking. They did a great job at utilizing social media and their blog to build anticipation to the CNN broadcast and awareness to what Sea World was doing wrong. Their publicity stunts also helped to gain a lot of media attention. The CNN broadcast also did a lot in terms of gaining viewers for this broadcast. Utilizing the media made the campaign super effective!
2. I think it was an effective tactic to show the reality of the inhumane behaviors of Sea World. If they had used less extravagant tactics I don’t think it would have gotten as much attention as it did. I also don’t think it would’ve caused others to speak up as much as they did.
3. If I were handling the PR for Sea World I would be very transparent in my response and acknowledge everything that PETA had said. I would issue an apology to not just the public but especially employees. At the end of the day the death and injuries were evident enough that they had a problem on their hands.

1) I have seen Blackfish and have not seen Truth Campaign yet, but I think I would definitely change. my position.  I think the support of Blackfish gained more awareness for animal rights in general, the mission of PETA. 

2) I think the best thing that could be done would be to stop the shows immediately. Clearly there were issues and developments needed to be addressed before proceeding with more shows if any. Waiting was only to make sure they made profits in the meantime which I think shows where their priorities are.

3) I think the best way to address the Blackfish controversy would be to take full ownership of how they contribute to animal rights issues, and show they were being conscious of how they treat their animals and be transparent on how they profit from it.

I feel like PETA uses these types of methods because they know it will be effective in garnering attention in the media. I do think that sometimes their tactics can get a little bit too extreme.

I would have released a statement saying that SeaWorld is making new policies for animal protection and rights.

I think they should have stopped after the death of Dawn Brancheau because that should have been their wake up call to treat animals in a better manner.

I think that SeaWord lost its trust with people when the Blackfish documentary came out. I think their response just made them look more guilty.

2. If used correctly, extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention can be highly successful which is seen in this case study with PETA. Their unconventional ways got viewers anticipating blackfish which lead to more media traction and their publicity stunt were captivating. 

3. If I worked at PR for SeaWorld my first response would be to issue a statement of acknowledgment of the situation and to let the public know that they are fully aware of what is going on. Being transparent in situations like these is vital and admitting to wrong doing and future change is what would be my suggestion for crisis reaction. 

2.I believe that orcas being used for human entertainment in entirety is not ethical as these creatures were not born to entertain humans at their expense. Following the death of Dawn Brancheau that should have been the tipping point for SeaWorld to change the way the facility was ran and re-evaluated if it was morally right to continue on. Dawn’s death should have been an immediate wake up call to show the consequences of Orca entertainment.

3In a situation like this there was nothing much SeaWorld could have done to combat the Blackfish documentary. There was hard evidence of the immense wrongdoings and the exposing of SeaWorld that a company could never come back from. SeaWorld lost respect as a company and from the public. 

2.I do not think  that it was fair at all to ban Carr-Jordon from the eight surrounding McDonalds and saw it as highly unprofessional. She was trying to spread a message across that the conditions of the playpens were extremely unsafe for children which is a serious topic and managers constantly ignored her requests for change and shut down her requests. Banning her from the location where she filmed her initial video could be seen from a business perspective as the right move but all surrounding eight was extreme and unnecessary.   

3.I believe that Carr-Jordan did everything in her power to increase her credibility among the key publics. She included a scientific perspective by taking samples of bacteria found on the playpen to the lab which ultimately lead to the finding of harmful bacteria and pathogens for children. One suggestion I would have had was to publicly speak with the scientists who conducted the study as they are seen as more credible than a mom presenting the information received from the lab. 

2) Dave Carroll’s video helped show other companies the power of social media and how fast word can spread. This sparked a bigger conversation about the dynamic between customers and companies. The video also provided complete transparency of the situation. 

3) United Airlines could use social media to repair their situation by posting a statement online and ensuring the public that their voices are being heard and that change is being done to improve customer service. They could also use for contacting customers about their concerns.

I think PETA did an effective job of promoting the viewing of Blackfish. I don't know what else they could have done to better promote it.

2.  How do you feel about PETA using extravagant and unconventional methods to gain media attention?
I think it is very true to PETA's brand, but also contributes to that brand of being over the top and extravagant, which sometimes takes credibility away from them as an organization.

3.  If you worked PR for SeaWorld, how would you respond to PETA and the release of the Blackfish documentary?
I think the only course of action is to acknowledge the documentary, apologize, and maintain total transparency.

2. Should SeaWorld have stopped orca entertainment shows after the death of Dawn Brancheau or was it okay to wait until after the Blackfish documentary (roughly 3-6 years after her death)?
I think SeaWorld should have immediately stopped orca shows. Only stopping them after the documentary made it seem less authentic.
3. Was there anything else SeaWorld could’ve done better or differently in order to “fight” the Blackfish documentary controversies?
I think SeaWorld did an admirable job, given the circumstances. I don't know what else they could have done.

I think the steps Carr-Jordan took to create awareness for her campaign were adequate, especially because she was only one person. 

I do not think it was fair for McDonald's to ban her, and I think it made them look far worse in the long run.

I think getting additional professionals actively on her side would have increased her credibility among key publics.